LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIs the BBC right not to screen the ad as it would be seen to be taking sides?
Yes
No
Is the BBC right not to screen the ad as it would be seen to be taking sides?
[
Originally Posted by Blitzen
To simply put it, no. Its a nonsensical decision by the BBC and I don't see how it would effect their impartiality.
I am undecided (not voting), although leaning more towards their decision matches their ethos of impartiality. It's a tough decision for the BBC, but at least you can't call them hypocrites this time.
The demonstrations in Glasgow argue that the British people can differentiate between support for humanitarian aid and perceived partiality in a conflict. That, I do not, for a second, doubt. It's the rest of the world, in particular the conflicting nations, that may not see it the same way.
The BBC are trying to uphold their ethos: so I don't like their decision, but I can see why they have chosen not to broadcast it.
As someone said on C4 news over the weekend, both the BBC ad Sky broadcast directly into that region. ITV, C4 and C5 do not, so the BBC and Sky have a lot more to think about when it comes to how this is handled.
What about adverts for Oxfam, RSPCA, Help The Aged? Should the BBC show those?
BBC News has already been very biased in the way they reported the conflict.
If they start to show this advert doesn't this open the can of worms to the fact they can then start showing sofa adverts for DFS and alike inbetween the breaks of shows?
If it's going to be on ALL the other channels, whats the fuss if the BBC don't broadcast it?
Well Sky have now annonced that they are refusing to aid the aid appeal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...hepalestinians
As Lee said why is it such an issue if 2 channels are not broadcasting it?
I think this bit about the BBC being 'impartial' is a total load of twaddle. They have never ever been impartial, prior to 2003 and they were a bastion of left wing neo libralisim always at the governments heels, since the Dr David Kelly whitewash they seem to wheel out the government line on every issue. Far from impartial imo and I do conceed the fact that it is unrealistic to expect any organisation to be impartial.
I think they should have shown it yes, I don't think helping civillians caught in the middle who are being bombed to crap is in any way taking sides.
HEXUS FOLDING TEAM It's EASY
awww I should have read the question properly, i vote "NO" but reading it now I actually meant "YES"
Never mind .
They've alway been a bit of a bunch of lefties but there's a big difference between having an internal editorial slant/policy and actively supporting the political position of a third party.
____
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Providing that they also show an advert raising money for the Israelis that have been rocketed by Hamas, immediately afterwards then that would solve the impartiality.
However I think that they could provide details of the charity on the screen after the news article about Gaza, without having to show the whole advert.
This is similar to what they have done with other charities.
How many that said they think the BBC are wrong will donate? No many i bet.
Fact is, the problems in Gaza are self inflicted by the two factions. Let them pay for it as i see things like supporting our NSPCC as far more important.
It's not an easy decision in the light of what is clearly a humanitarian 'problem', but it is still a very active situation, with a LOT of live political issues, and with reporters on the ground, and with negotiations going on.
The BBC (and Sky News) cover the humanitarian problem and the situation on the ground extensively. Several other channels are broadcasting the appeal and there's been so much coverage of their decision not to broadcast the appeal that the appeal has probably had more airtime about the BBC's decision than it would have got from just broadcasting the appeal.
Can there be anyone that would have seen the appeal on the BBC that won't have seen their coverage of their decision, or the extra coverage it's got on other channels.
The BBC has a remit to follow, and providing a platform for independent organisations is outside the standard territory. So before they give ANY outside body a platform, they need to consider the implications.
Like it or not, and whether fairly or not, in many parts of the world the BBC is seen as a tool of the British government, and them carrying such material, which inevitably will use heart-rending pictures of the suffering in Gaza without any balancing material about the other side of the story could well be seen as loaded. It could even be seen as an endorsement of one side.
While this is still such an active story, and with on-going political connotations of the first order, I think they're right to insist on keeping a step back from events.
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
It is highly unlikely I would have seen the appeal or even known about it had the BBC shown it without the current media attention. I haven't seen it on any of the other channels.
But I have heard about it now, and I will continue to hear about it for the next few days I would expect. This is far better publicity for the appeal than they would normally ever get.
Yes - I think this has done much more to raise the coverage of both the appeal and BBC. Clever thinking.
I think he was a great footballer, but he's past help.
You owe it to yourself to click here really.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
